Fieke van Hoorn1, Maria P H Koster2, Anneke Kwee1, Floris Groenendaal3, Arie Franx1,2, Mireille N Bekker4. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, Utrecht, 3584 EA, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Centre Rotterdam, Doctor Molewaterplein 40, Rotterdam, 3015 GD, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Neonatology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, Utrecht, 3584 EA, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Lundlaan 6, Utrecht, 3584 EA, the Netherlands. M.N.Bekker-3@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improvement in the accuracy of identifying women who are at risk to develop gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is warranted, since timely diagnosis and treatment improves the outcomes of this common pregnancy disorder. Although prognostic models for GDM are externally validated and outperform current risk factor based selective approaches, there is little known about the impact of such models in day-to-day obstetric care. METHODS: A prognostic model was implemented as a directive clinical prediction rule, classifying women as low- or high-risk for GDM, with subsequent distinctive care pathways including selective midpregnancy testing for GDM in high-risk women in a prospective multicenter birth cohort comprising 1073 pregnant women without pre-existing diabetes and 60 obstetric healthcare professionals included in nine independent midwifery practices and three hospitals in the Netherlands (effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 study). Model performance (c-statistic) and implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability) were evaluated after 6 months by indicators and implementation instruments (NoMAD; MIDI). RESULTS: The adherence to the prognostic model (c-statistic 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.90)) was 95% (n = 1021). Healthcare professionals scored 3.7 (IQR 3.3-4.0) on implementation instruments on a 5-point Likert scale. Important facilitators were knowledge, willingness and confidence to use the model, client cooperation and opportunities for reconfiguration. Identified barriers mostly related to operational and organizational issues. Regardless of risk-status, pregnant women appreciated first-trimester information on GDM risk-status and lifestyle advice to achieve risk reduction, respectively 89% (n = 556) and 90% (n = 564)). CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic model was successfully implemented and well received by healthcare professionals and pregnant women. Prognostic models should be recommended for adoption in guidelines.
BACKGROUND: Improvement in the accuracy of identifying women who are at risk to develop gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is warranted, since timely diagnosis and treatment improves the outcomes of this common pregnancy disorder. Although prognostic models for GDM are externally validated and outperform current risk factor based selective approaches, there is little known about the impact of such models in day-to-day obstetric care. METHODS: A prognostic model was implemented as a directive clinical prediction rule, classifying women as low- or high-risk for GDM, with subsequent distinctive care pathways including selective midpregnancy testing for GDM in high-risk women in a prospective multicenter birth cohort comprising 1073 pregnant women without pre-existing diabetes and 60 obstetric healthcare professionals included in nine independent midwifery practices and three hospitals in the Netherlands (effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 study). Model performance (c-statistic) and implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, sustainability) were evaluated after 6 months by indicators and implementation instruments (NoMAD; MIDI). RESULTS: The adherence to the prognostic model (c-statistic 0.85 (95%CI 0.81-0.90)) was 95% (n = 1021). Healthcare professionals scored 3.7 (IQR 3.3-4.0) on implementation instruments on a 5-point Likert scale. Important facilitators were knowledge, willingness and confidence to use the model, client cooperation and opportunities for reconfiguration. Identified barriers mostly related to operational and organizational issues. Regardless of risk-status, pregnant women appreciated first-trimester information on GDM risk-status and lifestyle advice to achieve risk reduction, respectively 89% (n = 556) and 90% (n = 564)). CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic model was successfully implemented and well received by healthcare professionals and pregnant women. Prognostic models should be recommended for adoption in guidelines.
Authors: Helena J Teede; Cheryce L Harrison; Wan T Teh; Eldho Paul; Carolyn A Allan Journal: Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 2.100
Authors: Caroline A Crowther; Janet E Hiller; John R Moss; Andrew J McPhee; William S Jeffries; Jeffrey S Robinson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark B Landon; Catherine Y Spong; Elizabeth Thom; Marshall W Carpenter; Susan M Ramin; Brian Casey; Ronald J Wapner; Michael W Varner; Dwight J Rouse; John M Thorp; Anthony Sciscione; Patrick Catalano; Margaret Harper; George Saade; Kristine Y Lain; Yoram Sorokin; Alan M Peaceman; Jorge E Tolosa; Garland B Anderson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Emily Kleinrouweler; Fiona M Cheong-See; Gary S Collins; Anneke Kwee; Shakila Thangaratinam; Khalid S Khan; Ben Willem J Mol; Eva Pajkrt; Karel G M Moons; Ewoud Schuit Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Byron J Powell; Thomas J Waltz; Matthew J Chinman; Laura J Damschroder; Jeffrey L Smith; Monica M Matthieu; Enola K Proctor; JoAnn E Kirchner Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Carl R May; Frances Mair; Tracy Finch; Anne MacFarlane; Christopher Dowrick; Shaun Treweek; Tim Rapley; Luciana Ballini; Bie Nio Ong; Anne Rogers; Elizabeth Murray; Glyn Elwyn; France Légaré; Jane Gunn; Victor M Montori Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2009-05-21 Impact factor: 7.327